Most of the responses to my OP started with the premise that physical reality was the only reality. Some responses objected to specific forms of theism, so in my responses, I backed away from the idea of deity to focus the discussion on the idea of the transcendent. My claim is that to what we call physical reality is a sub-set of the totality, and not the whole of it. One need not be a theist to acknowledge this as a legitimate position, i.e. that not everything in the world reduces to physics nor is the scientific method the only means for investigating the world.
Mathematics is the perfect example of this, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method that it supports. Math is pure induction. It cannot be subjected to empirical verification. Empirical deduction is contingent upon mathematics even at the most basic level. Likewise scientific investigations are performed using our ability to experience sensation. Observations, such as those made during scientific inquiry, are contingent upon sensations.
In the first case, a priori rules are set-up that cannot be evaluated with the system of rules itself (Kant, Godel). In the second, the effects of consciousness can be observed but not the cause of consciousness itself (Sartre). Saying Mind=Brain fails to explain why one set of nuerons firing in one part of the brain produces pain while an indistinguishable set of cells, that differ only by location, causes the memory of your grandmother.
That is why I consider it painfully obvious that physical reality occurs either within or adjacent to other transcendent parts. It is equally obvious to me that we can and do interact with those transcendent parts of reality everyday. No belief in deity is required to hold this position. Yet, too many of you appear to believe that being an atheist requires you to be a reductionist.
Mathematics is the perfect example of this, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method that it supports. Math is pure induction. It cannot be subjected to empirical verification. Empirical deduction is contingent upon mathematics even at the most basic level. Likewise scientific investigations are performed using our ability to experience sensation. Observations, such as those made during scientific inquiry, are contingent upon sensations.
In the first case, a priori rules are set-up that cannot be evaluated with the system of rules itself (Kant, Godel). In the second, the effects of consciousness can be observed but not the cause of consciousness itself (Sartre). Saying Mind=Brain fails to explain why one set of nuerons firing in one part of the brain produces pain while an indistinguishable set of cells, that differ only by location, causes the memory of your grandmother.
That is why I consider it painfully obvious that physical reality occurs either within or adjacent to other transcendent parts. It is equally obvious to me that we can and do interact with those transcendent parts of reality everyday. No belief in deity is required to hold this position. Yet, too many of you appear to believe that being an atheist requires you to be a reductionist.
